GR 114170; (January, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 114170 January 15, 1999
PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and METROPOLITAN FABRICS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Prosperity Credit Resources, Inc. gave a loan to private respondent Metropolitan Fabrics, Inc., secured by a mortgage on seven parcels of land. Upon private respondent’s default, petitioner foreclosed the mortgage and became the highest bidder. Private respondent later negotiated to redeem three of the lots. Since this redemption would leave petitioner’s remaining four lots without access to the public road, the parties executed a Memorandum of Undertaking dated September 18, 1987. This document stated that the lot, being an existing private road, “will remain open to ingress and egress for whatever kind of passage” in favor of petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner filed an injunctive suit, alleging that private respondent violated the agreement by refusing to allow excavations for water pipe installation, banning entry of trucks during certain hours, and subjecting vehicles to unnecessary searches. Petitioner sought a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The Regional Trial Court granted the writ. The Court of Appeals set aside the writ, finding that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering private respondent to allow petitioner to undertake excavations along the access road for installing water pipes.
RULING
Yes, the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion. To justify a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, the complainant must show a clear legal right, a material and substantial violation of that right, and an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Petitioner’s right was based on the Memorandum of Undertaking granting a right of way “for whatever kind of passage.” The Court held that the term “passage” refers to the act or right of passing, and does not clearly include the ancillary right to make excavations for installing water pipes. Petitioner’s right to such excavations was not clear and unmistakable. Since the complainant’s right must be clear for a mandatory injunction to issue, and petitioner’s right to excavate was doubtful, the trial court’s issuance of the writ constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals correctly annulled the orders granting the writ.